1
   

is religion just a collection of man made dogma's that destroy the true meaning of of God?

 
 
auroreII
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Jul, 2011 04:19 am
To me dogma always meant a certain amount of inflexibility. Don't think you can have religion based around forgiveness with inflexibility.
0 Replies
 
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Jul, 2011 04:28 am
@BDV,
BDV wrote:

As per question, has religious dogma's destroyed the true meaning of religion which i would assume is to be a good person?


The way people learn about the concept of god is through religion. Without religion I highly doubt anyone would come to the conclusion that a god or gods exist. Because which god are you referring to in the title of the post? You mean Zeus right?

Fido
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Jul, 2011 07:53 am
@Krumple,
Krumple wrote:

BDV wrote:

As per question, has religious dogma's destroyed the true meaning of religion which i would assume is to be a good person?


The way people learn about the concept of god is through religion. Without religion I highly doubt anyone would come to the conclusion that a god or gods exist. Because which god are you referring to in the title of the post? You mean Zeus right?


No; religion and religious belief may come out of the childhood of mankind, but we recreate that childhood of mankind in our own childhoods... People explain what they cannot explain with reason by means of magic and religion... And what a person is in childhood is not shed like a skin, but is carried on the outside like the skin of an onion... Most of us can look at religious belief and say: that is who I used to be, and that is how I used to think; but some people are that way through and through knowing know maturity of thought, and no inner growth...
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2011 01:12 am
@Fido,
Fido wrote:
No; religion and religious belief may come out of the childhood of mankind, but we recreate that childhood of mankind in our own childhoods... People explain what they cannot explain with reason by means of magic and religion... And what a person is in childhood is not shed like a skin, but is carried on the outside like the skin of an onion... Most of us can look at religious belief and say: that is who I used to be, and that is how I used to think; but some people are that way through and through knowing know maturity of thought, and no inner growth...


I guess you could say the same about invisible friends too...
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2011 09:15 am
@Krumple,
Krumple wrote:

Fido wrote:
No; religion and religious belief may come out of the childhood of mankind, but we recreate that childhood of mankind in our own childhoods... People explain what they cannot explain with reason by means of magic and religion... And what a person is in childhood is not shed like a skin, but is carried on the outside like the skin of an onion... Most of us can look at religious belief and say: that is who I used to be, and that is how I used to think; but some people are that way through and through knowing know maturity of thought, and no inner growth...


I guess you could say the same about invisible friends too...
Why do you suppose Children never ask why the lights go on when the switch is flipped??? Why do they not ask when their mother leaves and returns if it is the same mother who left that returned... Children simply do not have the power of critical, rational thinking and so their whole logic lies in definition, telling one thing apart from another by syllogism... God explains everything to people without the power to prove anything and so, as theory it was the beginning of science... As a practical matter it is pointless to presume in preference to the proposition that God made man that man made God since we are left without definitive proof...
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2011 09:56 am
@Fido,
Fido wrote:
Why do you suppose Children never ask why the lights go on when the switch is flipped??? Why do they not ask when their mother leaves and returns if it is the same mother who left that returned... Children simply do not have the power of critical, rational thinking and so their whole logic lies in definition, telling one thing apart from another by syllogism...


But filling in the gap with god does not solve anything. I fail to see the relevance in why it would be necessary when the logic is missing.

Fido wrote:

God explains everything to people without the power to prove anything and so, as theory it was the beginning of science...


God is no where in science and it definitely doesn't explain anything. Saying god is the cause does not constitute understanding the cause or how the cause happens. That is the old way of reasoning which is obsolete.

Fido wrote:

As a practical matter it is pointless to presume in preference to the proposition that God made man that man made God since we are left without definitive proof...


Would you say the same about gremlins or flying pink elephants? Both of these we can't prove either but I don't see people professing that we would consider their hand in the creation of the universe. Of if they have select precepts that should be obeyed.

The flying pink elephant does not like that people eat peanut butter. The flying pink elephant also does not like people applying paints to their faces. There are several other precepts but to get to my point, why aren't you following the precepts of the flying pink elephant who created the universe by accident?
BDV
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2011 07:02 pm
@Krumple,
Quote:
flying pink elephants
How do you know they did not have a hand in creation ?
Quote:
God is no where in science and it definitely doesn't explain anything.
First of all define god! then state why its not in science! I believe "God" is not in Science because its not the trend. If you defined "God" as an event, say the "big bang" then he does exist, according to religion he created all things, so "Big bang" is just scientists proclaiming the existance of God, because at the end of the day its just a theory, NOT fact
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2011 07:15 pm
@BDV,
Krumple wrote:
flying pink elephants


BDV wrote:
How do you know they did not have a hand in creation ?


It is silly to think they did without any supporting basis to believe that they did. This is how we rationally arrive at any understanding. To say that they could possibly have a hand in creation then ALL THINGS are likely to have a hand in creation and if that is the case then you say absolutely nothing.

Krumple wrote:

God is no where in science and it definitely doesn't explain anything.


BDV wrote:

First of all define god! then state why its not in science!


God is a made up abstract concept that doesn't exist in reality. There I answered both of your questions with one answer.

BDV wrote:

I believe "God" is not in Science because its not the trend. If you defined "God" as an event, say the "big bang" then he does exist, according to religion he created all things, so "Big bang" is just scientists proclaiming the existance of God, because at the end of the day its just a theory, NOT fact


Well there are alternative theories and a growing number of cosmologists and physicists who think that the universe did not "begin" or "start" at the big bang. The big bang was just an on going event but there was nothing created, instead it was a exchange of a small portion of energy into matter. So I wouldn't even come close to saying "god" is an event.

But even if I were to try and claim that a "god" is an event, I don't even know what that would mean or what consequences it would have. Does that mean that a god is only the event and can not act beyond the event? So in other words god is the big bang but nothing more, can't interact, can't impose any will, nothing. However; I doubt that is where you would stop with that definition and would probably want to sneak in other "traits" of god. Therefore god would not be the event but something else.
BDV
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2011 07:35 pm
@Krumple,
OK, so my thesis is as such " Before the big bang there where pink elephants, who ruled the nothingness, and being bored, created everything so that their nothingness became somethingness, but in creating everything they destroyed the pink elepantness as this was needed to big bang, create time and matter at a speed beyond physics, now prove me wrong without using the word "Silly"". Boom!!
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Jul, 2011 09:33 pm
@BDV,
BDV wrote:

OK, so my thesis is as such " Before the big bang there where pink elephants, who ruled the nothingness, and being bored, created everything so that their nothingness became somethingness, but in creating everything they destroyed the pink elepantness as this was needed to big bang, create time and matter at a speed beyond physics, now prove me wrong without using the word "Silly"". Boom!!


Well first you would have to explain how you came to the conclusion that there were pink elephants prior to the big bang and also the destruction of the pink elephants which caused the big bang. If you can't do that then you can essentially insert ANYTHING into the "cause". So in other words you say absolutely nothing if you are just guessing, or making it up.

Cosmologists don't just make things up. They ask questions and check the math to see if they can find answers for those questions. Then they develop a hypothesis based off their findings which are then passed onto other cosmologists and physicists to determine weather or not it is valid. If it is determine to be a valid hypothesis it is pushed towards being theoretical.

The part you are missing is the math or evidence which is required to form a basis for your question. You are neglecting this very important step. Until you provide for this step, anything you claim to be a "cause" is baseless.
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2011 02:03 pm
@BDV,
BDV wrote:

OK, so my thesis is as such " Before the big bang there where pink elephants, who ruled the nothingness, and being bored, created everything so that their nothingness became somethingness, but in creating everything they destroyed the pink elepantness as this was needed to big bang, create time and matter at a speed beyond physics, now prove me wrong without using the word "Silly"". Boom!!
A theory is simply a guess without the means to prove it true or false.
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2011 03:02 pm
@Fido,
Fido wrote:
A theory is simply a guess without the means to prove it true or false.


Are you sure about that? Evolution is a theory yet it can be falsified. I think you are mistaking theory with theology.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Aug, 2011 05:52 am
@Krumple,
Krumple wrote:

Fido wrote:
A theory is simply a guess without the means to prove it true or false.


Are you sure about that? Evolution is a theory yet it can be falsified. I think you are mistaking theory with theology.
The theory of evolution is not without proof or without evidence to support it...
0 Replies
 
snj
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Jun, 2013 11:55 pm
@BDV,
No,religion tells us how to be a good human.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 06/17/2024 at 12:23:31